Dwamena Francesca, Holmes-Rovner Margaret, Gaulden Carolyn M, Jorgenson Sarah, Sadigh Gelareh, Sikorskii Alla, Lewin Simon, Smith Robert C, Coffey John, Olomu Adesuwa
Department ofMedicine,Michigan StateUniversityCollege ofHumanMedicine, East Lansing,Michigan,USA.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Dec 12;12(12):CD003267. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003267.pub2.
Communication problems in health care may arise as a result of healthcare providers focusing on diseases and their management, rather than people, their lives and their health problems. Patient-centred approaches to care delivery in the patient encounter are increasingly advocated by consumers and clinicians and incorporated into training for healthcare providers. However, the impact of these interventions directly on clinical encounters and indirectly on patient satisfaction, healthcare behaviour and health status has not been adequately evaluated.
To assess the effects of interventions for healthcare providers that aim to promote patient-centred care (PCC) approaches in clinical consultations.
For this update, we searched: MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), and CINAHL (EbscoHOST) from January 2000 to June 2010. The earlier version of this review searched MEDLINE (1966 to December 1999), EMBASE (1985 to December 1999), PsycLIT (1987 to December 1999), CINAHL (1982 to December 1999) and HEALTH STAR (1975 to December 1999). We searched the bibliographies of studies assessed for inclusion and contacted study authors to identify other relevant studies. Any study authors who were contacted for further information on their studies were also asked if they were aware of any other published or ongoing studies that would meet our inclusion criteria.
In the original review, study designs included randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series studies of interventions for healthcare providers that promote patient-centred care in clinical consultations. In the present update, we were able to limit the studies to randomized controlled trials, thus limiting the likelihood of sampling error. This is especially important because the providers who volunteer for studies of PCC methods are likely to be different from the general population of providers. Patient-centred care was defined as a philosophy of care that encourages: (a) shared control of the consultation, decisions about interventions or management of the health problems with the patient, and/or (b) a focus in the consultation on the patient as a whole person who has individual preferences situated within social contexts (in contrast to a focus in the consultation on a body part or disease). Within our definition, shared treatment decision-making was a sufficient indicator of PCC. The participants were healthcare providers, including those in training.
We classified interventions by whether they focused only on training providers or on training providers and patients, with and without condition-specific educational materials. We grouped outcome data from the studies to evaluate both direct effects on patient encounters (consultation process variables) and effects on patient outcomes (satisfaction, healthcare behaviour change, health status). We pooled results of RCTs using standardized mean difference (SMD) and relative risks (RR) applying a fixed-effect model.
Forty-three randomized trials met the inclusion criteria, of which 29 are new in this update. In most of the studies, training interventions were directed at primary care physicians (general practitioners, internists, paediatricians or family doctors) or nurses practising in community or hospital outpatient settings. Some studies trained specialists. Patients were predominantly adults with general medical problems, though two studies included children with asthma. Descriptive and pooled analyses showed generally positive effects on consultation processes on a range of measures relating to clarifying patients' concerns and beliefs; communicating about treatment options; levels of empathy; and patients' perception of providers' attentiveness to them and their concerns as well as their diseases. A new finding for this update is that short-term training (less than 10 hours) is as successful as longer training.The analyses showed mixed results on satisfaction, behaviour and health status. Studies using complex interventions that focused on providers and patients with condition-specific materials generally showed benefit in health behaviour and satisfaction, as well as consultation processes, with mixed effects on health status. Pooled analysis of the fewer than half of included studies with adequate data suggests moderate beneficial effects from interventions on the consultation process; and mixed effects on behaviour and patient satisfaction, with small positive effects on health status. Risk of bias varied across studies. Studies that focused only on provider behaviour frequently did not collect data on patient outcomes, limiting the conclusions that can be drawn about the relative effect of intervention focus on providers compared with providers and patients.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to promote patient-centred care within clinical consultations are effective across studies in transferring patient-centred skills to providers. However the effects on patient satisfaction, health behaviour and health status are mixed. There is some indication that complex interventions directed at providers and patients that include condition-specific educational materials have beneficial effects on health behaviour and health status, outcomes not assessed in studies reviewed previously. The latter conclusion is tentative at this time and requires more data. The heterogeneity of outcomes, and the use of single item consultation and health behaviour measures limit the strength of the conclusions.
医疗保健中的沟通问题可能源于医疗服务提供者专注于疾病及其管理,而非患者本身、他们的生活以及健康问题。消费者和临床医生越来越倡导在患者诊疗过程中采用以患者为中心的护理方法,并将其纳入医疗服务提供者的培训中。然而,这些干预措施对临床诊疗的直接影响以及对患者满意度、医疗行为和健康状况的间接影响尚未得到充分评估。
评估旨在促进临床会诊中以患者为中心的护理(PCC)方法的医疗服务提供者干预措施的效果。
本次更新中,我们检索了:2000年1月至2010年6月的MEDLINE(OvidSP)、EMBASE(OvidSP)、PsycINFO(OvidSP)和CINAHL(EbscoHOST)。本综述的早期版本检索了MEDLINE(1966年至1999年12月)、EMBASE(1985年至1999年12月)、PsycLIT(1987年至1999年12月)、CINAHL(1982年至1999年12月)和HEALTH STAR(1975年至1999年12月)。我们检索了纳入研究的参考文献,并联系研究作者以识别其他相关研究。任何被联系以获取其研究进一步信息的研究作者也被问及他们是否知晓任何其他符合我们纳入标准的已发表或正在进行的研究。
在最初的综述中,研究设计包括随机对照试验、对照临床试验、前后对照研究以及针对促进临床会诊中以患者为中心护理的医疗服务提供者干预措施的中断时间序列研究。在本次更新中,我们能够将研究限制为随机对照试验,从而降低抽样误差的可能性。这一点尤为重要,因为自愿参与PCC方法研究的提供者可能与一般提供者群体不同。以患者为中心的护理被定义为一种护理理念,鼓励:(a)与患者共同控制会诊、就健康问题的干预或管理做出决策,和/或(b)在会诊中关注作为一个整体的患者,该患者在社会背景中有个人偏好(与在会诊中关注身体部位或疾病形成对比)。在我们的定义中,共同的治疗决策是PCC的一个充分指标。参与者是医疗服务提供者,包括正在接受培训的人员。
我们根据干预措施是仅侧重于培训提供者还是同时培训提供者和患者,以及是否有针对特定病情的教育材料对干预措施进行分类。我们汇总了研究中的结果数据,以评估对患者诊疗的直接影响(会诊过程变量)以及对患者结局(满意度、医疗行为改变、健康状况)的影响。我们使用标准化均数差(SMD)和相对风险(RR),采用固定效应模型汇总随机对照试验的结果。
43项随机试验符合纳入标准,其中29项是本次更新中的新增试验。在大多数研究中,培训干预针对的是基层医疗医生(全科医生、内科医生、儿科医生或家庭医生)或在社区或医院门诊环境中执业的护士。一些研究培训了专科医生。患者主要是患有一般医疗问题的成年人,不过有两项研究纳入了哮喘儿童。描述性分析和汇总分析表明,在一系列与明确患者担忧和信念、交流治疗选择、共情水平以及患者对提供者对他们及其担忧和疾病的关注程度的感知相关的措施方面,对会诊过程总体有积极影响。本次更新的一个新发现是,短期培训(少于10小时)与较长时间的培训一样成功。分析显示在满意度、行为和健康状况方面结果不一。使用针对提供者和患者并包含特定病情材料的复杂干预措施的研究通常在健康行为、满意度以及会诊过程方面显示出益处,对健康状况有混合影响。对纳入研究中不到一半有足够数据的研究进行的汇总分析表明,干预措施对会诊过程有中度有益影响;对行为和患者满意度有混合影响,对健康状况有小的积极影响。各研究的偏倚风险各不相同。仅关注提供者行为的研究通常未收集患者结局数据,限制了与仅针对提供者相比,针对提供者和患者的干预重点的相对效果可得出的结论。
在临床会诊中促进以患者为中心护理的干预措施在将以患者为中心的技能传授给提供者的各项研究中是有效的。然而,对患者满意度、健康行为和健康状况的影响不一。有迹象表明,针对提供者和患者并包含特定病情教育材料的复杂干预措施对健康行为和健康状况有有益影响,这些结局在之前综述的研究中未进行评估。后一结论目前是初步的,需要更多数据。结局的异质性以及单项会诊和健康行为测量方法的使用限制了结论的力度。